Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete G5(non-admin closure). John from Idegon (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails ORG. Editor who promoted it claimed it was notable because it published a prestigious journal.^{[citation needed]} Even if the journal (of which notability has not been determined) were notable, or prestigious, or important, which I'm neither endorsing or contesting, that does not make the organization that produces it notable per INHERIT. Other sources on the article are either directly affiliated, or purely puff. Like an improperly attributed quote from a lawyer's blog attesting to the prestigious nature of the fellowship she was just awarded. BEFORE turned up nothing better. John from Idegon (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep No, I never stated it was notable because it published a prestigious journal. Your twisting the facts, and misrepresenting me which is WP:BADFAITH editing. This Afd is vexatious on your part. It is a learned society, with elected fellows, that has published its own journal for more than 60 years. Your think because it is matrimonial lawyers that it has worth and the blog references has been left over from the draft it is not worth an article. It has been in existence for 60 years, and I'm sure it has a lot of storied experience, full of potential sources. Any association, group, academy, learned society, institute, college, university or society are intrinsically notable by definition, as they have been brought together for defined purpose, and that purpose makes them notable. The article is covered by WP:NEXIST. This Afd is vexatious. scope_creep (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd strongly suggest you cool the personal attacks, as you are the one that promoted an article through AfC that did not have one single reliable independent source and then stated publicly that you have not reviewed at AfC recently and did know the standard had changed (it hasn't) to not promote articles that cannot pass AfD on inspection. And NO organization is covered by NEXIST. John from Idegon (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the sources in the article, and my own searching, this fails WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:AUD, and WP:ORGIND. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok. I've made a mistake on NEXIST, but it is still notable. I added two references, which should have been enough to stop it being deleted. scope_creep (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the first reference insufficient to save it, from the University of Chicago Press, scope_creep (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Scope creep, I'd say no. A book published by an elite university press such as UC Press would almost certainly be above reproach from a reliablity standpoint, but the depth of coverage is missing. You've got one paragraph that contains no information that cannot be found on the organization's website. No analysis, no indication of even much research. Even the other likely reliable, secondary source, the Connecticut Law newspaper, is only a job announcement; again lacking depth. Still fails ORGDEPTH. John from Idegon (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book source added by Scope creep [1] and this one [2] have enough coverage to get it past GNG and ORGDEPTH. SpinningSpark 17:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry about that refactor. scope_creep (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I added a couple additional links to the Talk page as support. I also disclosed a potential COI relationship, only because I am familiar with the organization. I am not a member, and no member is family or a friend. I am not receiving any compensation. Please do not attack me as a new contributor, since I am still learning the rules and do not know if I am making a mistake right now by commenting. TaxPapa (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You are certainly allowed to comment here; in fact, it would be unusual if you didn't. However, your !vote will likely be discounted by the editor who closes this. You've made what we call an WP:ILIKEIT !vote. I think you said somewhere you're a lawyer. These discussions work just like court. Instead of making arguments to law based on precident and evidence (we specifically discount precident here. See WP:OSE.), you make arguments to Wikipedia policies and guidelines based in reliable sources. This discussion will remain open at least 6 more days. I'd suggest you spend some of that time learning the lawbook so to speak. Remember you can also improve the article if possible by adding content based in reliable sources. But notability will not be improved unless you add reliable secondary sources, totally independent of the subject of the article, that speak of the subject in detail. John from Idegon (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is over 800 pages of newspapers articles between 1970 and 1980 alone at newspapers.com, related to the academy. scope_creep (talk) 09:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The following was offered as a reference: Mondaq and AAML have no causal relationshop. Mondaq is a very large advice site that offers legal, financial and regulatory information from over 70 countries. Its not the best, but it is a start. This has some history: [3]. Not the best either, but also a start. 13:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment It will need to be G5'd. scope_creep (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.